Drivers for linux are rubbish

[albatorsk]

Can you name a native OpenGL application that doesn't work on fglrx? I've asked other people and they couldn't.

What good would that do? How would I know if there's a bug in the application or if it's in fglrx?

Anyway, here's what glChess is supposed to look like: http://live.gnome.org/glChess?action...=glchess3d.png

and here's what it looks like for me: http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/1...usgnuchess.png

Does it work? Probably. Is that good enough of an example?

True, the 2D stuff is a bit dodgy on fglrx now, but I run open drivers and 2D is amazing there.

Unfortunately, just as little as I'd like to reboot into Windows everytime I want to play a game, I don't want to switch between the open driver and fglrx everytime I want reasonably fast 3D either.

[Jimbo]

What good would that do? How would I know if there's a bug in the application or if it's in fglrx?

You should know, you are the one who are blaming linux opengl applications not work because of fglrx. Are you sure glchess is fglrx fault? Do you know of more applications?

[albatorsk]

You should know, you are the one who are blaming linux opengl applications not work because of fglrx. Are you sure glchess is fglrx fault? Do you know of more applications?

No, glChess was a lucky(?) guess. I just fired up the first 3D app I could find in my menu.

I base my previous assumptions on the fact that since switching from nVidia to AMD, the entire GUI experience has significantly declined. From slow 2D, to slow 3D to missing features such as vsynced video playback.

Now, IT IS POSSIBLE that it's all the fault of everybody else. Nobody writes complex applications without bugs, but somehow nVidia managed to not get stung by them.

The only logical conclusion I can draw by my experience is that fglrx was/is not up to par with the competition.

[adamk]

But surely you can admit that others apparently do not have all the same problems you do with fglrx (and may have other more serious problems with nvidia) and that their only logical conclusion is that nvidia is not up to par with the competition.

Adam

[albatorsk]

But surely you can admit that others apparently do not have all the same problems you do with fglrx (and may have other more serious problems with nvidia) and that their only logical conclusion is that nvidia is not up to par with the competition.

Sure. If slow 2D, slow 3D and missing vsync on Xvideo is a common problem on nVidia hardware.

Now, at least the first two are essential to me. I'm willing to bet they're pretty essential to most other people as well. There are also countless threads about Xvideo and how it's broken, here on phoronix, so I'm guessing others find it quite annoying as well.

[Jimbo]

The only logical conclusion I can draw by my experience is that fglrx was/is not up to par with the competition.

My conclusion is that your experience is reduced to emulators and wine, and you extrapolate this to the linux opengl world.

[albatorsk]

My conclusion is that your experience is reduced to emulators and wine, and you extrapolate this to the linux opengl world.

Ok.

My answer was too short so I had to add this.

[adamk]

If you check out the nvnews linux forum, you'll see various complaints about slowness (both 2D and 3D) as well as complaints about tearing with video playback.

Personally, I have no real complaints when it comes to 3D speed or Xv with my HD4850 in linux using fglrx. I do have complaints about the nvidia drivers solidly locking up my last machine.

So hopefully you can now understand that *your* experience with fglrx (or any driver, for that reason) is not necessarily something everyone shares. And perhaps, just perhaps, different people have different experiences and might get a little defensive when a driver that works fine for them is continually slammed as being inferiour to another driver that (for them, at least) is in fact inferior.

Adam

[albatorsk]

If you check out the nvnews linux forum, you'll see various complaints about slowness (both 2D and 3D) as well as complaints about tearing with video playback.

Of course it happens, but it's usually treated as a bug. In the case of tearing (yeah, I know, I'm stuck on this one issue) it's so obvious to most people that vsync should be implemented in the driver. Yet, for AMD, it's a feature that's simply not requested by their customers, so it gets no attention. I can't understand this.

So hopefully you can now understand that *your* experience with fglrx (or any driver, for that reason) is not necessarily something everyone shares. And perhaps, just perhaps, different people have different experiences and might get a little defensive when a driver that works fine for them is continually slammed as being inferiour to another driver that (for them, at least) is in fact inferior.

Of course I understand that my personal experience isn't the only one that counts. Heck, on my last job we managed hundreds of linux workstations and every time we tried using a card from AMD's FireGL line (as they were called back then), things broke. We always had to go back to nVidia.

[adamk]

Heck, on my last job we managed hundreds of linux workstations and every time we tried using a card from AMD's FireGL line (as they were called back then), things broke. We always had to go back to nVidia.

Is that supposed to reflect poorly on AMD or on you? Because, from my POV, it doesn't reflect poorly on AMD :-)